From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27957 invoked by uid 1002); 22 Apr 2003 18:06:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 31199 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2003 18:06:33 -0000 Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:06:31 -0400 From: Jon Portnoy To: Klavs Klavsen Cc: Mark Bainter , gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Message-ID: <20030422180631.GA31985@cerberus.oppresses.us> References: <1050997108.2986.28.camel@amd.vsen.dk> <1051016369.4102.46.camel@entropy> <200304221726.35741.danarmak@gentoo.org> <200304221557.42803.aoyu93@dsl.pipex.com> <1051027209.2986.81.camel@amd.vsen.dk> <20030422165933.GB7131@cerberus.oppresses.us> <20030422175556.GM2114@firinn.org> <1051034412.3002.85.camel@amd.vsen.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1051034412.3002.85.camel@amd.vsen.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuilds not getting in :( X-Archives-Salt: 0ec3708a-e5a9-45aa-9460-c8f6824eea7b X-Archives-Hash: ce525b52f8dd8cca6a030d235afda053 On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 08:00:12PM +0200, Klavs Klavsen wrote: > On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 19:55, Mark Bainter wrote: > > Jon Portnoy [avenj@gentoo.org] wrote: > > > The problem is that we can't just give everyone who submits an ebuild or > > > two commit access. > > > > > > We are, however, stepping up recruiting somewhat with a recruiting email > > > address. There are also ideas floating around for ways to make it easier > > > for users to get ebuilds into the tree quicker. > > > > I don't disagree with this. You might consider letting them still be a > > maintainer though, and just have people who are new maintainers pass > > their changes through a more seasoned member of the community until they > > have a few releases under their belt, or whatever criteria the devs think > > demonstrates the level of trust necessary to give them commit access to > > their ebuilds. > > See this sounds like a good idea. I ofcourse don't want the current > maintainer to feel dumped because someone else makes an ebuild for the > newest version of a program. > > Perhaps something like a Primary - and secondary ebuild maintainers > could be established? > Something similar is in the works as part of the maintainers for ebuilds thing. Nothing has been absolutely decided on yet, so it's premature to offer details and get people's hopes up, but hopefully the new system will provide for a better way to keep track of ebuild updates and figure out what ebuilds need new maintainers, allowing us to recruit new developers to maintain ebuilds in an intelligent and systematic fashion. In short: good things are coming (hopefully) :-) -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list